NOOR MUHAMMAD and another vs MUHAMMAD MURAD and 3 others
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court which set aside the concurrent judgments of the courts below in favor of rival pre-emptors. The pre-emptors had initially succeeded on the ground that they were co-sharers of the Khatas from which the sale was made. However, the High Court held that the vendor was an allottee of specific Khasra Numbers rather than a co-sharer, thereby going behind the sale-deed. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court re-evaluating factual aspects of the sale-deed at the revisional stage to the detriment of pre-emptors, and the adequacy of notice given to the petitioners regarding the hearing of the revision petitions. The Supreme Court held that the sale-deed demonstrated a sale of a share in the Khata rather than specific Khasra Numbers, and that it was improper to go behind the sale-deed at the revisional stage. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal.
- Whether the High Court can go behind the sale-deed at the revisional stage to determine the nature of the property sold?
- Does a sale of a share in a Khata constitute a sale of specific Khasra Numbers for the purpose of pre-emption?
- Whether inadequate notice of the hearing of revision petitions vitiates the High Court's judgment?
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-Two sets of rival pre-emptors have separately filed petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 10-10-1984 whereby accepting the Revision Petitions, the judgments of the Courts below were set aside.
2. ' The rival pre-emptors succeeded on the ground that they were co-sharers of the Khatas from which sale was made. This fact was not interfered with by the impugned order but going behind the sale, the learned Judge held that the vendor was allottee of specific Khasara Numbers and not a co-sharer and what was sold was not a share in the Khata but specific Khasara Numbers.
3. MrAbdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has made a grievance of the fact that the petitioners had not received an adequate notice of the hearing of Revisions itself.
4. On merits it is stated that an obvious error has taken place as the sale which was subjected to pre- emption claim of the petitioners was, as the sale-deed shows, not of a specific Khasra Number but of a share in the Khata. In view of the nature of the sale, there was no occasion to go behind the sale for the benefit of the vendee and to the detriment of the pre-emptors and that too at the Revisional stage.
5. ' A case for leave to appeal is made out. Leave to appeal is granted. Security of Rs,5,000 in each case. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.